While still carrying the label “Development Prototype”, the website looks mostly functional. www.climate.gov
It is the effort of the new NOAA Climate Services division – your tax dollars at work. They write:
At this time, the NCS Portal prototype only scratches the surface of the many climate datasets, products, and services available across NOAA. This effort will gradually transition from a prototype to an operational status over the next year. Our plan is to actively gather user feedback through focus groups, usability studies, and informal communications. Over the next several years, we will expand the NCS Portal’s scope and functionality in a user-driven manner to greatly enhance the accessibility and usefulness of NOAA’s climate resources. As this effort continues to expand in future years, partners from outside of NOAA will become involved in this effort. The NCS Portal will be a central component of NOAA’s commitment to enhancing the access to and extensibility of climate data and services, timely articles and information, education resources, and tools for engagement and decision-making.
Here’s the main page, which is not fully shown because it is so tall:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When will NOAA discover truth?
Look your bad vibes made it go away. All I see is a <
I enjoyed setting the slider to 1930-1970 and thinking nothing was happening. I assumed from the press release you could go beyond the front page interactive nonsense to get some real data. I'm happy to be corrected.
Not working at the moment:
“Bad Request
Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
Reason: You’re speaking plain HTTP to an SSL-enabled server port.
Instead use the HTTPS scheme to access this URL, please.
Hint: https://ncs.ncdc.noaa.gov/”
and when click on the secured linked, Firefox tells me I should not trust that connection, and gives me the button : “get me out of there!”
but you have to trust them to access the site which sounds like real climate science, isn’t it (“trust me… trust me…”)
BBC NEWS:
Climate e-mail hack ‘will impact on Copenhagen summit’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8392611.stm
Seems to have stopped working. Got a few screenshots, though
Leif Svalgaard (21:53:15) :
The ‘incoming sunlight’ graph is using an obsolete TSI-reconstruction.
welcome back Leif.
I noticed under the “News” they included Sept was hot story, but seemed to have missed the Oct was cold story.
The BBC’s new pictorial / narrated walkthrough.
‘A journey through the Earth’s climate history’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm
There is a farmer in NE Oregon that absolutely believes in this tripe and continues to plant spring wheat. Crop gets destroyed by cold every year. So he sends in his insurance claim complete with NOAA predictions of perfect weather for Spring Wheat. And he gets his check. Every year.
Hey! I think I have figured this out! Eureka! NOAA is providing a much needed service so that we can pump the wallets of tax payers! Gotta get me some a’ dat spring wheat!
Clearly, the site is a “work in progress”.
It also doesn’t appear to be something thrown together over the weekend, either, so they’ve probably been working on it for some time.
The problem, as has been noted, is that the are selecting the information to be shown and the method in which it will be portrayed. This gives “believers” what they want, but does nothing regarding providing information to climate scientists which would allow verification of the information being provided.
The temperature graph. It seems routine that NOAA, GISS, et al adjust *blips* in the 30’s and 40’s downwards, and uptrend the last 40 years in line with the manmade warming hypothesis.
Has anyone plotted a graph from John Daly’s station page and formed a global average? Afterall, it claims to be raw data from NASA and CRU
The “Climate Dashboard” idea is just wonderful. Simplify it down to a set of “idiot lights” that tell you nothing other than the lights are on — just like that check engine indicator on your car that’s been on for the last three years because of a malfunctioning sensor.
Try without the secure page “s” in https
http://ncs.ncdc.noaa.gov/
@AdderW Saudi Arabia should be expected to “talk its own book”. While I agree that AGW is a pile of steaming cow patty, they would say the same even if was not.
Reuters:
Top climate change expert hopes science got it wrong
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5B212M20091203
Myopic doesn’t even begin to describe the “Global Climate Dashboard.”
Where is the data on cloud cover? Humidity? Ocean heat content? Overall albedo of the earth as seen from space?
(Queue crickets chirping.)
Timing of the NOAA is uncanny. And the selection of graphs and pictures is utterly astounding – could there be a more blatant attempt to shape public perception than with flat out distortions and lies – Someone should be investigated for putting erroneous data up on a government run website.
This is the CRU model of information dissemination.
And, as always, if the dashboard doesn’t let you drill down to the actual, factual, raw data, you’ve got to be very careful making conclusions. Without the raw data, and an understanding of how the individual points were collected, you’ve just got a bunch of pretty charts that may, or may not, be meaningful.
I guess they are doing this in response to Sen. Inhofe’s move to get their data released: “There’s no need for us to release data Senator, its all there on our website.”
BTW, the article states that they are using station temperature data. Lord Monckton recently wrote that satellite data is calibrated against the station data, so if the latter are biased, so must be the former. Is this true, does anyone know? If so, then it doesn’t seem to make much sense to even have satellite data.
Somebody mentioned NASA earlier….NASA, NASA…where have I heard that before….oh yeah…..they are the same guys who said that foam couldn’t damage the leading edge of the Space Shuttle wing.
Regarding the dashboard.
Did the sunlight quit 10 years ago?
If the sun didn’t stop 10 years ago, are they still Mannipulating the data?
Based on the last 2 weeks, I really don’t believe this climate report service either.
The Hockey Stick turns up once more.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm
If anyone out there is interested in true science, you must read the following report:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
I’m starting to wonder if space exploration is too important to be left to NASA, entangled as it is in Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
Perhaps give manned space to Space Command, space telescopes to the USNO, and orbiters and landers to the USGS.
Sir Russell Muir is to chair the inquiry into the leaking of UEA-CRU emails.
This guy is renowned in Scotland for not being a friend of the truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muir_Russell
A very controversial appointment.
Michael R (21:56:08) : You asked, “Does anyone else notice that if you drag the little slider bar to 2009, all of the graphs but one go to 2009. Sunlight %, whatever that is stops at 1999. Any particular reason for this?”
I believe the Incoming Sunlight % graph is based on the Lean (2000) Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) reconstruction. That reconstruction is obsolete. The current understanding of TSI is that the minimum levels do not vary. See the red curve in the graph courtesy of Leif Svalgaard:
http://s5.tinypic.com/mmuclk.jpg
Climate scientists use outdated TSI reconstructions to help explain the rise in surface temperatures in the first half of the 20th century. It was discussed in my post that ran here back in March. My original version is here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html
Regards